Do You Think Watches are Investments?

Test your theory and buy this for $5300:

And then wait ten years and tell us what happens.  Or is your question really about certain Rolex models and not about watches in general? I will hang up and listen.

I believe my post was 100% crystal clear...

I didn't say that ALL watches are investments.  I said they CAN be investments, and I specifically referred to luxury brands.

If you inferred anywhere from my post that I would consider the watch you posted to be an investment I want what you're smoking!

I believe my comment was 100% crystal clear...

I was making fun of your post.

I think watches (or anything you buy and own) can be considered an investment. But like all financial investments some go down. Some fluctuate. Some go up. I assume you’re talking about purely financial gain. It doesn’t take into account the emotional gain/loss from owning an item - that can’t be in hard currency.

This is such a played out topic with one very simple answer - no, unless you buy certain brands with restrictive supply. You have to pay to play, and the game is stacked against you. I’ve got a number of pieces I know I have made money on, but this is as a by-product of actually wanting them anyway. As someone who drops £10-50 on battered 1950s-1970s watches with decent movements, or pin-pallet movements for cheap thrills, I think we have different goals with what we want out this watch game.

If you're one of the people that says "Watches are not investments." would you at least acknowledge that they can be used as investments?

What comments have you heard that argue watches are not investments?

like it or not it is a investment if you re choose the right model. but thats just a bonus point and nothing wrong with that. im just dont really like people who buy a watch just for financial gain, for me it ruins the hobby and there arent enthusiasm and appreciation in it.

It appears as though you edited your original post to make your point more clearly.

The answer to this question is a Rorschach Test, not for knowledge or appreciation of timepieces, but for disposable income.

In many ways your "homage" question from a few days ago was more pertinent.  There are many more here that will reach for a Steeldive because they cannot afford the original. There are very few here who will buy a piece thinking that its value will appreciate at a rate higher than inflation or the rate of return for other investments. Most buy Rolex because they like the watch.

I have known people who have bought Rolex as an investment.  I have also known people who bought hand sanitizer and N95 masks as an investment.  Similar folks.

And I was making fun of yours because it appears you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

No doubt.  Just because it's an investment doesn't mean you're guaranteed to come out ahead.  LOTS of investments lose value.

The stock market is down YTD, but that doesn't mean that stocks aren't investments.

To me, that's the beauty of watches...you can get the best of both worlds.  You can own an asset that is, more than likely, going to appreciate but also get to enjoy wearing/using it.

I would agree that we have different goals and are after different watches.

That doesn't make your approach right or wrong.  It also doesn't make my approach right or wrong.

With that said, maybe your watches are not investments, but mine are.  Can you agree on that?

"WATCHES ARE NOT INVESTMENTS."

I read that at least 5X/day on certain forums/boards.

You're absolutely right...some people are in it only for financial gain and don't care anything about what they're buying/selling.

What I love about watches is that it's something that I love, but I know my family isn't going to take a hit financially for me to enjoy my hobby.  There are very few hobbies where you can come out ahead financially.

I'd love to own a few sports cars, but it feels irresponsible for me to buy something that is going to depreciate from day 1.  On the other hand, if I buy a watch I can use/enjoy/love it and it's not damaging my family's finances.

FALSE...my post has not been edited.  Nice try though.

Also, you've got it completely backwards.  If I was trying to "flex" or show that I have a certain amount of disposable income I'd be doing a terrible job.  I do have a few nice pieces, but you'll probably never see me post a photo of them.

Who cares if someone started a business selling N95 masks!?!  IMO they should be applauded for being ambitious, taking a chance, and trying to sell a product that they believed to be helpful to many people.  If you have a problem with that I feel sorry for you.

If I could afford the few watches that might actually increase in value I wouldn't need to use a watch as an investment.

And how many Rolexes would you need to buy to realize any substantial return?

A "substantial return" is going to be different for everyone.  So I guess I'd have to ask how you define it?  Would it be a specific dollar amount, percentage, or something else?

I think most people would consider buying one two tone Daytona a substantial return if they could buy it at retail for $18k and it was worth $25k+.  And those can absolutely be purchased...just because you can't walk into an AD and buy it right now doesn't mean that they're impossible to get.

Also, I think that's a great point about not "needing" to use a watch as an investment.  I'd be willing to bet that most people who consider their collection an investment have probably already maxed out their Roth IRA for the year and are looking for creative investments...no different than many people who buy real estate.

If you are buying what I think you are buying I already did - why are you being hostile? You want a discussion or are you just making a statement? Do you want assurance that your watches are worth money? Fine - it’s well established that if you are in the elite market you can make money, you just need to get in there first; it’s not an open playing field it‘s pay to play. Happy?

I think that you misunderstand.

1.  I was not accusing you of "flexing". I was gently mocking your post for asking a question that has been played out, affects very few watch enthusiasts and fewer watch buyers, and is certain to elicit the same tired arguments with which we are all familiar. That you have nice watches that you will not show a picture of is a bit unusual given what the point of WC seems to be, but no matter.
2.  I have an old college friend who has business connections in China.  Early in the pandemic he obtained stores of N95 masks and hand sanitizer when these were beginning to be scarce and there were supply chain issues.  The purpose was not to help people but to exploit a crisis for maximum profit.  His business restricted the supply of masks when they were needed most.  He made money, but not as much as he thought that he would.  I did not think that his business model increased the common good. Do you still feel sorry for me?

You have a habit of asking well-worn forum questions whose answers bring the most heat and the least illumination.  It's your right if that interests you. It doesn't harm anyone or our enjoyment of the space.  However, you are missing the real question: will a 52mm Shaq Automatic look good on my 6.75 inch wrist?

I honestly get tired of hearing that it's "pay to play" and that you can't get nice watches unless you spend tons of money on other stuff first...simply not true, you just have to be patient.

It's really pretty simple IMO.  Visit a few ADs and try to start a relationship...there may only be one who is a "good fit" for you but that's all you need.  Let them know what you want and as long as it's not unreasonable (SS Daytonas aren't going to happen) they're happy to gain a new customer.  Yes, it may take a year to get a piece you want, but that happens to people all the time.  If you love the watch waiting ONE YEAR is nothing.  I was in my late 30s before I ever owned my first "nice" watch.  If I can wait that long for my first one I can damn sure wait one more year for a piece I really want.

You say that this topic is played out, or well worn but if you search this is only the 4th post on this entire website when you search for "investment."  While you may get tired of seeing this conversation other places, it has not been had repeatedly on this website.

Why would it be strange that I don't want to show all of my watches?  I'm here for discussing watches, learning about new pieces, and hopefully finding watches that I'd like to collect...not to show off what I have or don't have.

I also had another post discussing a celebrity who, questionably, got caught wearing a fake watch.  There were A LOT of people who commented that they too would lie (possibly omit?) about having an expensive collection for their own safety.  I believe it's each individual's decision to share what they feel comfortable with.  Maybe that's why you use a screen name as opposed to your real name?  Whatever the reason, that's your right.

I have no problem with your college friend's business.  To me, it boils down to this: He was responsible for bringing N95 masks to the USA and he sold them for a price that others were willing to pay.  Unless there's much more to it, or he broke the law, I don't have a problem with it.  The supply/demand curve was CRAZY for masks so I would assume that they get sold at inflated prices.

A: The 52mm Invicta Shaq doesn't look good on anyone's wrist! 😂

Why are you so angry? If you want to patronise me, then fine. 

You are aware that watches cost money right? You do have to pay for them, so in order to make money you have to buy them first. You do understand what investing is right - you put something in to get something back. You want to buy a Rolex or AP, that is a big chunk of money up front. Even if you wait for it, you still need to drop a few grand to hopefully see that turn into a few more grand, and it is outside your control depending on what the brand do. Rolex aren’t sitting there going, oh Grailtimepieces just bought a Daytona at retail, let’s not release some for a while so he can sell it for more money privately and then maybe come back and buy a Sky Dweller… They don’t make anything from that, they just sell what they want to sell, doesn’t matter about you. You think you are in control?

What do you want me to say? Are you telling me how to buy a watch? Why am I even engaging with you? I agreed with your point, and yet you‘re talking to me like I’ve told you to do one… Look at the watches making money on the grey market, it’s the usual suspects. If you can buy them on the regular enjoy your better odds than everyone else. Most brands lose value the minute you buy them, so should we not buy them because that makes little sense financially; but then again if nobody buys a new watch, how will the industry survive? Oh no… dilemma in the luxury goods aisle. Most watches are bought for personal or sentimental reasons, and sometimes that might net you a profit, but often it doesn’t, just live with it. Some of us don’t buy watches to do this, some of us are happy pissing about in the lower echelon, and we are fine. Some of us bottom-feeders may already have their Rolex or VC (like me), and we are just wiling away the time buying random shit that others don’t care about - that’s our decision.
 

Plough me in a horizontal direction.

You have to purchase all investments...does that make stock markets "pay to play?"

What about real estate?

Pay to play implies that you have to pay to have the opportunity to purchase a watch...I do believe that there are some crooked ADs who may do that, but it's not all of them or even the majority of them.

I didn't make one comment telling you what to do or how to do it.

You really misunderstand the phrase, and some ADs take deposits. All investment is pay to play. Most of life is pay to play.

You usually have to buy stock to trade. You don’t get something from nothing. If you don’t buy stock you don’t get to trade. If you don’t have stock, you don’t trade stock. If you want to look at more speculative forms of playing the market, that is gambling. You risk capital and either gain or lose depending on what happens, but you can’t bet unless you put money in. I’ve never walked into a bookies and put on a bet for nothing.

Real estate - you have to buy a property in order to rent it or sell it, unless you are a squatter. Or, you have to invest money into building a new property in order to sell it, be it via borrowing or with capital.

Gold - buy the gold. If you don’t have gold I cannot buy the gold off you, no deal.

You have to buy the Rolex to make money from the Rolex. You have to spend $7500 or whatever to get your Explorer. You are now -$7500. If you sell that Rolex for $15000, you are +$7500 overall and no longer have the Rolex to sell. You now know you can make money from Rolex, so you can buy another Rolex, this time for $8000, so you are now -$500 overall. If you sell that for $20,000 then you are +$19500, and have no watch again. In order to make this $19500, you had to put in $15500, and got $35000. In order to play this game, you have to buy a Rolex, you have to pay.

You told me to make friends with an AD to buy a watch, tell them what I want and to be patient. 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what pay to play is.

Pay to play is NOT: pay to buy a watch.

Pay to play is: pay someone (aka bribe) to then have the opportunity to buy a watch.

A deposit is not pay to play...it's a deposit.  I would happily put down a 50% deposit for 10 stainless steel Daytonas right now if I was going to get the next one that came through the door.

At the risk of sounding pedantic I used the words “pay to play”, not the term ”pay-to-play”. You have to spend money to make money, and investing is a game. I was being quite literal. This is clearly an eats shoots and leaves / eats, shoots, and leaves scenario. I’m also not going into why pay-to-play is also relevant, I’m tired and I’ve had my fun. Regardless, I did agree with you so why I got it in the neck I don’t know. Have fun at the top.

Yeah, I get that, but what are the reasons? Have you heard:

• "You can't be a real watch collector/enthusiast, if you're in it for the value retention only"
• "Those investing are ruining supply for watch collectors who will appreciate the timepieces for their engineering/design/artistic qualities"
• "Watches reflect a collector's/enthusiast's personality and shouldn't be hoarded to sell for profit - that's soulless"

Of course, there are watch buyers out there who will use value retention/appreciation as part of their collecting strategy - some will put this at the top of their criteria for buying a watch. There are also those who love what a watch is and appreciate the technical and artistic craftsmanship that has gone into making it and view the watch as an investment, way down the list of "must haves".

I don't think anyone doubts that watches can be investments - of course they can be! But I think where collectors differ is where they prioritise this and the reasons for (as noted above) and I think that is where the real conjecture lies.

Yes and no. Rolex sure, but noone can buy them at MSRP anyway.

Omega's somewhat.

If i buy a Speedmaster, it will probably retain it's value, or lose single digit percentage if i sell it.

So those watches i'd see as an asset, that won't completely lose it's value over time. Like 99% of cars do ....

That said, 95% of watches also lose much value over time. :(

No doubt, most watches do lose value…that’s why in the original post I clearly specified particular luxury brands.

I know you’re not being literal when you say “no one can buy Rolex at MSRP” but the truth is that Rolex is shipping more watches to the USA (where I live) than they ever have before and people are buying them.  So, they ARE being sold…every single day.

With that said, I completely understand that only a small percentage of people who want blue Skydwellers or white Daytonas are able to get them.  But, that doesn’t mean that they’re not being allocated to people.

All i know is, my colleague from work has several rolex and he is collecting them since 20 years. All from the same AD. (incl. Submariner and a GMT Master II).

Yet he waits for a simple OP since 3,5 years!

That's the situation in Austria. ;)

Going back to the original question “Do you think watches are investments?”

my take is that once you purchase one you are the owner and therefore entitle yourself to do anything you want, a pure outlay of cash in order to sell and make profit, keep it in a glass case to look at, wear it and shame the devil, or in many cases a mixture of all those things.

I buy watches I like, I wear them, I keep them for as long as they please me, and sell them in order to release funds to buy another I want. I rarely make a penny, but the value to me is the process of the hunt, the pleasure of it arriving and then wearing, when I decide to pass it on, I then get pleasure from the selling process. I own a Rolex, I bought it to wear and did do for several years ,however it’s now worth a lot more than I paid so I don’t wear it as much for fear of it being stolen, I intend to pass it down to one of my sons.